In this appeal, the court analyzes the extent of the consequential damages and future loss of profits that correspond to the lessor of a business premise on the occasion of the unilateral termination by the lessee, caused by the failure to obtain the mandatory licenses for the supermarket business of such premise.
The first instance ruling partially allowed the claim filed by the lessor, based on the fact that the failure to obtain the necessary licenses within the period indicated in the lease agreement was not attributable to such lessor. It likewise considered that the quantity to be paid by the defendant should be the quantity equivalent to the period of time that the lessee had to obtain the business licenses, in other words eight months, during which a grace period had been stipulated for payment of the rent.
The second instance ruling allowed the remedy of appeal filed by the plaintiff and revoked the first instance ruling, concluding that the quantity that the lessee should pay for the unilateral termination of the lease agreement should correspond to the rent for the full term of such agreement, in other words six years, while deducting the eight-month grace period.
In summary, the High Court allowed the appeal for cassation filed by the lessee based on the fact that loss of profit requires proof, as in the case of any damage or harm. And likewise determining that the setting of this type of compensation should be addressed by the courts using criteria seeking a balance that eludes both the rejection of lack of profit on the grounds of its hypothetical nature, as well as its unconditional allowance without any evidence whatsoever, since the quantity thereof should be set in accordance with the evidence by means of a reasonable calculation and in keeping with all concurring circumstances and foreseeable expectations of the market.
Consequences of the consideration of a bank transaction as a debt offset or pledge enforcement following the declaration of insolvency.